-7 votes

Imaginary voluntarist society: is it statist or voluntarist?

One hundred persons voluntarily form a village under a written contract with the following stipulations:

1. All members agree to pay 10% of the value of their property, income or purchases as they choose annually
2. All members agree to be subject to sit on jury in judgement of those who violate the contract
3. The penalties for violations are laid out in the original contract
4. Anyone who violates the contract and refuses the penalty has to leave the village
5. The signatories to the contract agree to submit to a draft in case of attack
6. The signatories agree to modifications to the contract by popular vote according to some described procedure

After everyone signs and the land is acquired and divided between the signatories, inexplicable natural disasters occur which make this village the only habitable area on the Earth surrounded by mutant shark infested radioactive waters.

As the oldest members die and children are born, the children must sign the contract upon majority or else leave the village. To leave the village of course implies facing the danger of mutant sharks and radioactive waves.

Therefore, the only means of changing the laws is by participating in the contractually defined procedures of changing the terms of the contract.

Does this private village conform to the conditions of NAP and not violate any libertarian ethics?

If so, how does this differ from a modern constitutional state?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I actually find

your opinions very sophisticated and interesting, unlike this shlock I've been wading through. That's another problem with the anarchocaps... they are seemingly not conversant with the whole rest of political philosophy and assume their own simplistic notions are self evident, where someone like Jefferson who was deeply learned and grappled with these problems in the real world came to very different conclusions. It is not obvious or self evident that some Rothbardian theory of property is correct, and therefore it cannot be ethically imperative or derived from something objectively true. That's the thing that annoys me is the form of argument that claims these ideas are derived ineluctably from apriori truths. It's obnoxious secular religion and full of zealots.

Are not homesteaders just

Are not homesteaders just another version of squatter? If a piece of land is not being used then is the person who starts using it a squatter or a homesteader? Wouldn't it be the supposed property owners responsibility to make sure people knew he/she/they owned the piece of land?

So not only are you calling a state a 'free society'

you are suggesting that having won their freedom people would be stupid enough to sign such a contract en masse? Not some people, 100% of a people in an area would sign away their rights and the rights of their children in perpetuity? Their children can leave but not with any property.

How is that different from a state? I mean you could do that today. Force people at 18 to sign their certificate of perpetual slavery to the state or else be deported with any property they claim confiscated.

It isn't different from a state, it's the definition of a state.

There's no reason free people can't form states in theory. But it has never happened, why would we think they would start?

Private law

systems presuppose people would voluntarily contract agreement to recieve protections... this isn't my idea, this is how the anarchists descirbe anarcho capitalism working.

Moreover, people do stuff like that all the time in history. People signed their rights over to ships they boarded, to wagontrains going west, they contracted themselves into religious communities with similar provisions. Getting 100 people to submit voluntarily to some very minimal legal contracts in exchange for the benefits of a justice system, police, national defense, etc., is easy.

You just assumed kids wouldn't be allowed to receive the value of inherited property even if they chose to leave the community. The contract could provide that those not signing at majority, if they had any property, could receive its value in compensation.

Basically, your answer is that this does not conform to NAP. But where does it violate NAP? Does the child coming to majority, not owning any property, have a right to live on others land?

You're in a bit of a pickle, my man.

The contract could provide

The contract could provide that those not signing at majority

Yet never has.

All the air in a room could rush into a corner and you suffocate, but never has. There could be a good politician, but never has.

People agree to terms for service all the time. They don't agree to sell their progeny into slavery in perpetuity all the time.

Basically, your answer

Basically my answer is what I write not what you invent. Haven't we had this conversation about straw man?

I don't have a problem with your society except that it wouldn't ever happen. We know this because all such 'social contracts' have been imposed by force or fraud. Even the framers, who basically arrogated the power to make this decision over their fellow men, didn't agree to such terms. They had enough decency and forethought to at least attempt to limit the evil of the state with some words on a paper.

Contracts are valid because they were formed voluntarily not because they are contracts.

If your imaginary and impossible society did in fact allow the child to leave with all of his property, which could be anything his parents of friends decided to give him, then yes it could be described as voluntary.

But of course this would never happen. Even if this was agreed to in the original contract the 'state' wouldn't allow people to just leave in fact, and the contract would be 'amended' post agreement thus nullifying any validity the contract had.

If they didn't renege on the contract allowing children to leave with their property then the society would evaporate in time as things got worse and parents freed their children, and the ruling class would have to get real jobs.

So it will be reneged on. So the society would never be formed, would evaporate it somehow did for and somehow stayed free, but wouldn't remain free anyway.

The initial problem is still the greatest impossibility. For your scenario you'd have to have a group of people all be impossibly stupid at the same time. Why would free people ever do this? For the 'blessings' of a monopoly of force? I mean seriously that's insane.

They certainly couldn't any of them have kids. Selling prospective children into servitude is one thing, selling actual children into servitude is a much greater leap.

Yet never has. Correct,

Yet never has.

Correct, private law according to some harebrained heterodox property theory never has existed. My hypothetical is just one possible subset or version. It is as good as any other scenario, and you have not shown that it violates NAP simply because it attaches terms to membership and property ownership. That's almost the bare minimum condition of a private law association.

How the next generation sould be approached with accepting those terms, the freedom to opt in or out of ownership and its terms, and how property claims would be disposed for those opting to exit, are all hypothetical. You haven't given any objections or arguments of why this is in any way not valid under NAP.

People agree to terms for service all the time. They don't agree to sell their progeny into slavery in perpetuity all the time.

Neither do they in my scenario. This statement is just blatant detachment from reality and fantasy, to which you are no stranger.

Much more onerous contracts have been entered into unanimously in our own history, for example in the wagontrains and immigration ships I already mentioned above. A typical colonial village surrounded by hostile country and Indians would have also been a voluntary, unanimous group who all agreed to the laws/terms for the protections provided. The scenario I gave is a cakewalk compared to real unanimous consent examples from our history.

That nice. Describe a state, call it voluntarist,

And then ask how its any different than a state.


A state is aggressive by definition

The arrangement described in the OP involves no aggression.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

What if

you refuse to leave. Violence...there you are.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

Violence =/= Aggression

Shooting somebody for no reason is aggression; shooting somebody in self-defense is not.

Taking $100 from somebody for no reason is aggression; collecting the $100 they owe you is not.

Pushing somebody for no reason is aggression; pushing a trespasser off your property is not.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

It was voluntarily formed!

Is a voluntary state still a state?

The Diamond Dog is a real cool cat. | Reporting on the world from an altitude of 420.

It all has to do with applying property and how they apply

To land ownership.

just saying.


Just sayin


do you think you have the right to kwn land property?



I think it is right

that I should enjoy the fruits of my own labor and have legal protections to property I acquired legally. I would not expect this to be protected by others without some restrictions on what I can do on or with my land. Without others defending my right, all I have is my own force, which is minimal indeed.

How do you come to aquire land property?




inheritance, gift, damages in a law suit, successful theft or fraud and evasion of the law, or through a transfer from the government (theft on NAP, but not theft on a non-NAP theory of just property.

I don't know of any other ways.

Are you saying that you dont know of

Are you saying that you don't know of any other ways to acquire property rights in land, than through contractual transfer of property rights in land?

How does someone acquire land if nobody has the property rights to transfer?




By definition, all legal ways of transferring property will legal. Above I gave all the ways that pass for legal today, and so would involve the transfer of title in every case. But the ways I gave aren't all contractual. Re-read.

Maybe you should reread my question.

The term contractually should have been supplemented, omitted, or replaced. Good job.

Now, how do you obtain land property rights to land that is not owned by someone else?


By whatever means will be

By whatever means will be legally enforced by the gang in charge.

Ok. got it.

You didn't say anything again.

This is becoming a pattern.


It's the accurate answer to

It's the accurate answer to your question. It's your responsibility to formulate and understand your own questions. You seem to want to be asking a "should" question when you are asking an "is" question. You ask: What ways can a person acquire property... What you're really getting at is "How should people get to acquire property." You seem to think they're the same question. One way of getting property is by the government giving it to you. I realize you don't like this, but it is just a reality. In fact, anyone who lives under the protection of the law and the umbrella of military protection is gaining access to goods that he probably could not afford on his own account. They are being provided to you because the cost is spread over everyone who has to pay. If you want to be ethical, put yourself outside of that protection.

Do you have any moral presuppositions?

What is the moral way to acquire land property that nobody has a property right in?

Remember, you sought to describe a stateless society. You failed. When I ask how do you achieve x, y, and z, and you respond with "The State" then you have not done a very good job describing a stateless society.


This is all very confused

Your cute attempt to be cryptic has just made a muddle out of the whole thing. What are you trying to get at?

In your cute attempt to know what i am getting at

before I get there, you have neglected to answer my question.

What is the moral way of acquiring land property that nobody has a property right in?

in other words: how do you acquire land property that is not owned by anybody?

How do you take land out of a state of not being property, into a state of being property?


You changed the question from before.

The moral way to get property would depend on what morality you held. For example, a sick, hungry parent who couldn't work or feed your kid might consider it very moral for their friend to provide food stolen from a wealthy miser.

Or another person might feel that since self interest is the highest morality, any theft they could successfully get away with would be morally good.

You can't just assume your morality is 'true,' unless perhaps you're religious and believe morality is an objective and real thing that comes from God.

Finally, even someone who has a typical morality does not consider government wrong because he might see taxes as the price we pay for living in a community. So from all possible angles, the moral presuppositions you bring to the table don't really advance the argument for a particular theory of property.

what do you think the moral way to acquire

Property rights to land that is not owned?

I asked you what you think about land ownership of property, and you said that it was "right".

I asked you what way you could go about acquiring land property, and you said transfer of various means.

Now I am asking you what way you feel is the right way to acquire land property that is not owned by anyone.


I don't know

I am morally ambiguous, like most of the human race. I just do it more intellectually.

Do you have an intelectual premise

That would lead you to an ethical answer?